JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of an Appellate order made by the District Judge of Rangpur on the 17th December, 1940, affirming that of the Munsif, 1st Court, of that place made in a proceeding under sec. 4 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The facts are simple. The Appellants before us obtained a decree for ejectment against the Respondent in Title Suit No. 37 of 1939. The decree was passed on the 17th June, 1939. An application for execution was started on the 17th January, 1940, and an order for the issue of a writ for delivery of possession was made on the 3rd February, 1940. Possession was actually delivered on the 9th February, 1940. On the 24th August, 1940, the Respondent made the present application for restoration of possession under sec. 4 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and this was allowed by the trial Court and the decision was confirmed in appeal. 2. It is not disputed that delivery of possession was taken between the 30th of January, 1940, and the date of the commencement of the Act which was 30th May, 1940, and consequently the provisions of sec. 4 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act are prima facie attracted to the facts of this case. 3. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that sec. 4 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act is ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. What is pointed out to us is that it is repugnant to the provisions in the existing law which is contained in sec. 51, cl. (a) as well as Or. 21, r. 35 of the CPC and as no assent of the Governor-General was taken, sub-sec. (2) of sec. 107 of the Government of India Act is not applicable in this case. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention. We think that the reasons given by the Special Bench in the case of Sm. Sukumari Devi v. Rajdhari Pandey 46 C. W. N. 174 (Spl. B.) (1941). where the identical question was raised with regard to sec. 3 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act can with equal propriety be applied to the present case. If there is really any conflict between the provisions of sec. 4 and those of sec. 51 or Or. 21, r. 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, the conflict is avoided, in our opinion, by sec. 3 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act can with equal propriety be applied to the present case. If there is really any conflict between the provisions of sec. 4 and those of sec. 51 or Or. 21, r. 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, the conflict is avoided, in our opinion, by sec. 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. But quite apart from that we think that this is a piece of legislation covered by Items Nos. 2 and 21 taken together of the Provincial list. In this view of the case, the question of repugnancy does not arise. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is dismissed with costs,-hearing-fee being assessed at one gold mohur.